It's "just slowed down" to the point that it takes 2 minutes to load a web page.
Oh, and since pedanticism over practicality is apparently winning around here, I'll point out that with the throttling there's only a certain amount of data you can download within a billing cycle. Oops, gee, it's both literally and practically not unlimited.
I can see we have a reading comprehension problem in general, here, as opposed to just the one that prevents you from understanding what the significance of that equation is. I just said I was bad at math and I was in marketing. Why would you compliment me by asking if I was a bookkeeper, accounts clerk, or even an MBA?
Anyway, you're misunderstanding it in a way that is hilariously similar to the way I've seen a marketing department fail. Let's boil it down:
"If one in a thousand planets meets some criteria that means there's billions of them out there!"
That's not a measurement of data you know. It's an indicator of what you don't know. The key word? If. Since you do not know what the conditions are for life to exist anywhere, all you're saying is: "Welp, there's lotsa places to look!" That may sound like it means lots of life is out there, but since you're missing the key info of what it takes to get life started on an average planet, it doesn't mean anything.
I'll put it another way, at the company I did marketing work for, we figured that the market we were entering our product into made something like 15 billion a year. So the math we used was: "If we sold our product to just one percent of those people, we'd be raking in tens of millions of dollars!"
We all nodded our head in agreement, hilariously unaware of how stupid we were. You see, we didn't factor in one crucial bit of the equation: Nobody wanted our product. Anything times zero is zero.
I don't imagine you're going to let this soak in, and that's fine. Just remember that a similar style of math was used to prove that we never actually landed on the moon. Turns out there's a less than one percent chance of safely landing a man there. Who know we could beat the odds so consistently?
The marketing departments of a number of failed businesses used the same math. You didn't show what the possibility is, you showed what all you don't know.
I've heard this explanation before, but one thing bothers me: Under the plan I read about, the customer would still get their gigs of data, it's just the sponsored content wouldn't be pulled from that allotment. So if Netflix paid the bill, for example, you could stream 10 gigs of Netflix and still have your 2 gigs left over for other services. The user wouldn't see a lower bill, but if they would see more data landing to their phone.
I still think it's a shitty idea, it's just the 'double dipping' argument I think is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
Who also fraternize with popular people. The Linux users' stereotype, though...
It's "just slowed down" to the point that it takes 2 minutes to load a web page.
Oh, and since pedanticism over practicality is apparently winning around here, I'll point out that with the throttling there's only a certain amount of data you can download within a billing cycle. Oops, gee, it's both literally and practically not unlimited.
They throttle it to uselessness.
Remember when I never responded when you asked for a recommendation?
No, really, it did! It shows that all the 5 people that used that feature stopped buying sony! That'll show them!!!
I never used it and I've stopped buying Sony because of it.
I will look into that, thank you.
And yet you've never heard of the Drake Equation.
Yes, I have, and you are misunderstanding it.
Lemme guess. Bookkeeper? Accounts clerk? Harvard MBA?
I can see we have a reading comprehension problem in general, here, as opposed to just the one that prevents you from understanding what the significance of that equation is. I just said I was bad at math and I was in marketing. Why would you compliment me by asking if I was a bookkeeper, accounts clerk, or even an MBA?
Anyway, you're misunderstanding it in a way that is hilariously similar to the way I've seen a marketing department fail. Let's boil it down:
"If one in a thousand planets meets some criteria that means there's billions of them out there!"
That's not a measurement of data you know. It's an indicator of what you don't know. The key word? If. Since you do not know what the conditions are for life to exist anywhere, all you're saying is: "Welp, there's lotsa places to look!" That may sound like it means lots of life is out there, but since you're missing the key info of what it takes to get life started on an average planet, it doesn't mean anything.
I'll put it another way, at the company I did marketing work for, we figured that the market we were entering our product into made something like 15 billion a year. So the math we used was: "If we sold our product to just one percent of those people, we'd be raking in tens of millions of dollars!"
We all nodded our head in agreement, hilariously unaware of how stupid we were. You see, we didn't factor in one crucial bit of the equation: Nobody wanted our product. Anything times zero is zero.
I don't imagine you're going to let this soak in, and that's fine. Just remember that a similar style of math was used to prove that we never actually landed on the moon. Turns out there's a less than one percent chance of safely landing a man there. Who know we could beat the odds so consistently?
The complaint is about the rise, not about the price.
Oh, and that's a faulty rationale anyway.
I bet somebody says 'khaaaan', but uses the word 'obligatory' in a vain attempt to excuse its lack of funny.
You're right. I'm terrible at math, I used to work ib marketing. And... we used the same sort of math to project our profits!
Everyone's a Captain Picard!
Know-it-all Slashdotters chuckle from their parents' basement.
The marketing departments of a number of failed businesses used the same math. You didn't show what the possibility is, you showed what all you don't know.
I seriously hope this is just a too-well-written satire.
I remember seeing Home Soil when I was a kid. It gave me chills when they said the laser stopped firing as soon as he stopped screaming.
Here's an idea: try watching something new.
Or read a book?
After-all, that's why you don't own a TV and haven't the foggiest clue what 'CG' means, right?
You're also forgetting the source material doesn't even look that great...
Yes, it does.
I don't see why people get so bent out of shape when someone tries to change which of their pockets the money is coming out of.
The people getting bent out of shape are the people who have an unlimited contract. Kind of an important detail in this topic.
I've heard this explanation before, but one thing bothers me: Under the plan I read about, the customer would still get their gigs of data, it's just the sponsored content wouldn't be pulled from that allotment. So if Netflix paid the bill, for example, you could stream 10 gigs of Netflix and still have your 2 gigs left over for other services. The user wouldn't see a lower bill, but if they would see more data landing to their phone.
I still think it's a shitty idea, it's just the 'double dipping' argument I think is incorrect.
What is wrong with this?
It's fraud.
If I did that, nobody'd be able to hear you speak!
Riker shot first!
Oh, come on! It was self defense! Captain Picard clearly said "Fire at Will!"
I'll concede, though, that Commander Data is way too literal.
One reason to have hard-earned money is to buy things that entertain you... which also means more entertaining things will appear.
Money is a resource, not a score.
Wow, your life must be a living hell.
This is neither news for nerds....
I don't agree. Politicians are legally allowed to robocall you. Grr.